← All Phrases

“mis-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A132 judgments

The decision most relied on for mis-reporting of income is CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mis-reporting of income

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal
275 ITR 113 · 2005 · High Court
38
citing judgments

The omission by an Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment, when there is an observation of under-reporting or mis-reporting of income, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise such an order under Section 263.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.
443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Judgments citing mis-reporting of income

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, whether for "UNDER- REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(7)” or “MIS-REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(9), as these two limbs are distinct and different. At the outset, it is submitted

St. Joshephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, whether for "UNDER- REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(7)” or “MIS-REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(9), as these two limbs are distinct and different. At the outset, it is submitted

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, whether for “UNDER- REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(7)” or “MIS-REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(9), as these two limbs are distinct and different. At the outset, it is submitted

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, whether for "UNDER- REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(7)” or “MIS-REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(9), as these two limbs are distinct and different. At the outset, it is submitted

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, whether for “UNDER- REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(7)” or “MIS-REPORTING OF INCOME as defined under section 270A(2) r.w.s 270A(9), as these two limbs are distinct and different. At the outset, it is submitted

Olympia Builders Private Limited, Delhi vs. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 270A

under-reporting of income by the assessee. The disallowance of certain expenditure on estimated basis cannot be equated with under-reporting or mis-reporting of income per se. 5. The assessee, in the instant case, has offered an explanation for non- application of s. 14A of the Act which appears

Agashi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Agashi, Virar vs. AO, Ward 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dnyanesh PatadeFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and a notice u/s 270A was issued on 22.04.2021 for under-reporting of income inconsequence of mis-reporting of income 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an order dated 11.02.2025, upheld the order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Muralikrishna Vaddi, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 494/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Balakrishnan, S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.494/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Muralikrishna Vaddi Circle 3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan: Awmpv9717D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Chakradhar, Ca (Hybrid) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 04/10/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A Chakradhar, CA (Hybrid)For Respondent: : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)Section 90

other hand, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the case of the assessee does not fall in the category of mis-reporting of income or facts as contemplated u/s 270A(2)(9) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The claim of Foreign Tax Credit has been denied ... Assessing Officer only due to the delay in filing the Form-67 and therefore, there is no mis-reporting of income on the part of the assessee by making a claim of Foreign Tax Credit whichis factually correct. He has supported the impugned order of the learned

DCIT/ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Nagpur vs. Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Dhamangaon Amravati

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 573/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271

considering the addition of Rs. 5,64,00,808/- as under reporting of income without appreciating the fact that the same is mis-reporting of income under the provisions of section 270A(8) and section 270A(9) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied u/s. 270A for under reporting in consequence of mis-reporting of income to 100% ignoring the provisions of 6 Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram ITA no.504/Nag./2024 ITA no.573/Nag./2024 section 270A sub-section 8 wherein

Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram, Amravati vs. DCIT ACIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 271

considering the addition of Rs. 5,64,00,808/- as under reporting of income without appreciating the fact that the same is mis-reporting of income under the provisions of section 270A(8) and section 270A(9) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied u/s. 270A for under reporting in consequence of mis-reporting of income to 100% ignoring the provisions of 6 Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram ITA no.504/Nag./2024 ITA no.573/Nag./2024 section 270A sub-section 8 wherein

Pranam Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 80I

assessee has knowingly claimed wrong deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, therefore, it is a matter of mis- representation of fact and mis-reporting of income and, therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s.270A of the Act. Hence, the Ld. DR for the Revenue contended that the penalty order

Poona Shims Kamagarsahakari Patsanstha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2332/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Poona Shimsari Vs Ito, Ward 9(3), Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, Pune Mumbai Pune Highway, Vadgaon Maval Pune- 412106 Maharashtra Pan-Aadap9903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO has levied the 270A penalty for under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income in absence of satisfaction of any of the conditions enumerated in section 270A(9) of the IT Act. 8. That, on the facts

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, for “under-reporting of income which is in consequences of mis-reporting of income”. In the penalty proceedings, after taking the submission of the assessee on record, the AO confirmed the penalty for “under-reporting of income which ... observed that the AO is not sure as to whether the penalty have been levied for “under-reporting” of income or “mis-reporting” of income. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on several judicial precedents which have held that penalty u/s.270A of the Act, requires precise classification, whether

Suresh Rao, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1235/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 192Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 9

keeping in view the specific facts and circumstances of the instant case, we have no hesitation to hold that no penalty u/s.270A for mis-reporting of income is leviable in this case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaycso648H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi BharadawajFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 270ASection 271D

delete receipts which comes to Rs. 14,45,40,000/- (20% of Rs.72,27,00,000/-). Penalty u/s.270A is initiated separately for mis-reporting of income. Proposals u/s.271D shall be submitted to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, separately for violation of provisions of Section 269SS by spectra group

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

copy of which is placed at page 26 of the paper book, she submitted that although the notice speaks of under-reporting / mis-reporting of income, however, the notice is silent regarding under which limb or clause of section 270A of the Act such penalty has been levied, since

Terai Fruits Company, Siliguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2099/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 285B

pertain to request of the appellant made u/s 270AA for dropping of penalty. The ground 1 pertain to the imposition of penalty for mis-reporting of income which the appellant in the written submissions has withdrawn. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions which ... observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” 4.2 Further, the higher amount of penalty for mis-reporting of income is specified as per the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 270A and the Ld. AO has not specified under which clause from

Vedant Properties, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2216/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

objection against the addition. He, therefore, held that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/sec.270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income. He, accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.12,78,134/- being 200% of tax sought to be evaded u/sec.270A of the Act. 3. In appeal ... assessee, that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer is silent about the clause under which the assessee has under- reported or mis-reported the income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Co-ordinate Bench

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore vs. L Javerchand Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1542/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 274

submitted that the penalty of Rs. 1,79,27,172/- was levied L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 8 of 17 for mis-reporting of income as per provisions of sec. 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Act due to the suppression of sales and the AO while ... initiating the penalty in the assessment order clearly mentioned the term mis-reporting of income. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji and reiterated the same grounds as placed before the lower authorities. Further

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

further argued by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty without giving details of exact clause of mis-reporting of income under which he 5 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 wanted to charge the assessee company. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to mention both in the assessment ... expenses, the assessee falls under the purview of provisions of sec.270A(3) as well as 270A(9) of the Act. Since there was mis-reporting of income as well as under-reporting of income, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying the impugned penalty u/sec.270A